Dell has silently launched one more slave up its LCD monitor line-up, the 23-inch Dell S2309W. Base specs of this 23-incher reveal a 1920x1080 wide resolution, making it Dell's second 16:9 full HD display after S2409W. Response time is measured to be 5ms, brightness is 300 cd/m2, and contrast ratio is 1,000:1. The S2309W connects to the PC via DVI or analog VGA. It follows the new trend by matching the resolution found on modern TVs, so you may think this would be the perfect choice for movie lovers, if it did not lack HDMI connectivity for some reason. The display is currently only on Dell's Canadian site here. There is no information on pricing and availability yet.

LMAO yeah stoopidly bought widescreen and hd drive to watch movies, hahahah little did I know movies are (mostly) not screened in 16:9, shot in whatever they freakin want lol. I mean wtf is 1.85:1 or 2.40:1, just make a full screen 16:9 movie lol, jees, you'd think they were against us lmao

LMAO yeah stoopidly bought widescreen and hd drive to watch movies, hahahah little did I know movies are (mostly) not screened in 16:9, shot in whatever they freakin want lol. I mean wtf is 1.85:1 or 2.40:1, just make a full screen 16:9 movie lol, jees, you'd think they were against us lmao

Click to expand...

I agree, they should stick to a standard. 1.85:1 isn't bad, but 2.35/4 is just ridiculously wide.
I think 16:9 is perfect. I don't wtf their deal is.

And maybe you "stoopid" people want smaller movies in the cinema as well?
I'm sorry, but movies are the way they are because they're shot for cinema, not for TV.
And "re-edit" them means we'll have the same problem as when 4:3 was the norm and we lost out a chunk on each side of the movie.
Go learn about how all this stuff works before you make stupid comments about stuff you know nothing about. :shadedshu

And besides, 16:9 screens are worse than 16:10 for anything BUT watching movies on, as they offer lower resolution, not great resolution. I'm amazed that the lot of you are buying into the BS marketing all these companies are doing about HD this and HD that, especially those of you that already have a 1920x1200 res display which is better than the 1920x1080 of the so called full HD displays.

Maybe you guys should write to the movie industry and complain that they movies they make are "too big" and they should consider people's TV screens instead of the cinema, maybe they'll listen

Btw, 16:9 is 1.78:1 and anything wider isn't really suitable for home use due to the odd screen size you'd end up with...

movies come in 16:9, or stupid alternate resolutions. as PC users, we get 16:10. as home cinema users, we get 16:9.

I do not like black bars, and for f*cks sake i do NOT want to stretch my video to fit. whats the point of making a movie for the cinema aspect ratio if it lasts 2 months in a cinema, and 20 years on DVD!

And maybe you "stoopid" people want smaller movies in the cinema as well?
I'm sorry, but movies are the way they are because they're shot for cinema, not for TV.
And "re-edit" them means we'll have the same problem as when 4:3 was the norm and we lost out a chunk on each side of the movie.
Go learn about how all this stuff works before you make stupid comments about stuff you know nothing about. :shadedshu

And besides, 16:9 screens are worse than 16:10 for anything BUT watching movies on, as they offer lower resolution, not great resolution. I'm amazed that the lot of you are buying into the BS marketing all these companies are doing about HD this and HD that, especially those of you that already have a 1920x1200 res display which is better than the 1920x1080 of the so called full HD displays.

Maybe you guys should write to the movie industry and complain that they movies they make are "too big" and they should consider people's TV screens instead of the cinema, maybe they'll listen

Btw, 16:9 is 1.78:1 and anything wider isn't really suitable for home use due to the odd screen size you'd end up with...

Click to expand...

Very well stated, as well, i believe HDMI has about ZERO place on a PC. The real advantage of HDMI is that it neatly sends audio and video over a single cable, but the bandwidth gap of HDMI vs DVI is about nothing, that and how many displays have onboard sound? Lastly, i would much rather have a connectivity for display port as it is computer equivalent of HDMI. On a final note, this is still a nice monitor, but i don't think i'd buy it for the simple fact that its native resolution is one thats not a very standard computer resolution, being that its 16:9 not 16:10, it wouldn't be much good for playing anything other than movies on, in which case i would rather use a TV display. However, i give props to Dell for advertising the actual response time, not some over the top measurement to boost their numbers. (Samsung)

Games work in 16:9 and 16:10. (Either they support all resolutions, or they were console ports with native support) Hell, i find more games that ONLY work in 16:9 than i do for 16:10.

So actually, 16:9 is the superior resolution here. It gives you native support in BOTH movies and games, whereas 16:10 only gives it in games, and not even all of them.

oh and HDMI loses nothing over DVI - HDMI is actually an extension of the DVI protocol, they just removed analogue VGA support and added audio instead. Its only pointless if the TV has no speakers, otherwise it has a few bonuses. One of them being cable size (its smaller) and the other being that they can be a LOT longer (15 meters, i have a 5M cable and it doesnt tie my PC next to the screen)